- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Samsung pays UK nanotechnology firm Nanoco $150 million in patent violation dispute
Samsung pays UK nanotechnology firm Nanoco $150 million in patent violation dispute
Samsung has settled a patent dispute with UK nanotechnology company Nanoco by paying $150 million. The dispute involved unauthorised use of patents in Samsung's QLED televisions. Legal teams from law firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, and Mintz Levin were involved in the dispute.
The settlement includes a licensing agreement and the transfer of some patents from Nanoco to Samsung. The settlement also ends all litigation between the two companies globally. Samsung was advised by Kirkland and Gillam & Smith.
"Today marks the start of a new chapter for Nanoco. We have successfully validated our core IP against one of the world's biggest electronics companies, who were advised by one of the most expensive law firms in the world. Others operating in our space should take note," Nanoco CEO Brian Tenner said.
The legal team that advised Nanoco in the patent dispute with Samsung was led by Boston-based partner Michael Newman from Mintz Levin, with support from Dallas-based specialist IP trial firm Caldwell Cassady & Curry and local counsel Ward Smith & Hill based in Longview.
Nanoco had alleged that Samsung's QLED televisions infringed several of its patents related to the synthesis and use of quantum dots.
Just days before the start of the patent infringement trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the parties agreed on 6 January to stay the proceedings to finalise a settlement agreement.
Private investment firm GLS Capital helped fund the litigation.